Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

>"A billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gases than the average person." https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-mi...

The methodology used for that headline is questionable. Most of that comes from their investments rather than flying private jets or whatever. That's questionable because it's not entirely obvious who the emissions of a company should be allocated to. Why should BP's shareholders be on the hook for the emissions from the oil it sells, rather than its customers who are actually burning the oil?

View on HN

> Why should BP's shareholders be on the hook for the emissions from the oil it sells, rather than its customers who are actually burning the oil?

Both drug users and drug dealers are considered complicit in the social impacts of that business.

Equating shareholders to dealers doesn't feel like the best analogy

Both charities and charity funders are considered complicit in the social impacts of that charity's output.

Wouldn't teachers but performing a harm if they taught a serial killer.

The company who made the breakfast of a rapist should be charged with the crime?

It is what a person does with that breakfast cereal not the cereal itself.

> The company who made the breakfast of a rapist should be charged with the crime?

The company is not literally investing in the endeavor of the rapist, the teacher is not literally investing in the outcome of the killer, investors/funders literally expect the outcome of the thing they invest in to continue without ambiguity. These are much less fitting than the drug-dealer analogy.

Buying 100 shares of Phillip Morris would cost me $13,000 but I don't think it has the same business impact as selling $13,000 of cigarettes

You still supported PM's activities, provided them a greater ability to sell more cigarettes with your investment, and reap profit from that activity. I don't see any insulation from support or culpability here.

I literally own tobacco company stock and accept that I am complicit in the sale of cigarettes, it's not much of a leap.

I think of this whenever I think of expenses vs. impact of SF's budget for looking after the homeless.

Even if you take that principle at face value you wouldn't author a report claiming "billionaires consume a million (or whatever) times more opioids than the average person, just because they own shares in pharmaceutical companies.

Because the shareholders invariably have more control in the oil output than consumers. Consumers have zero choice here - it's typically a gun to your head type scenario.

Either they consume the oil, or they can't drive, and therefore can't get a job, and will therefore die. So, they must consume the oil. Some have enough money to buy electric or hybrid - them, I would say, you can attribute SOME of the effects of the oil they use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com